Three takeaways from last nights debate

A place for Petra fans to discuss other topics
executioner
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 3947
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:56 am
#1 Album: JAH
Pethead since: 1980
Location: Earth
x 56

Re: Three takeaways from last nights debate

Post by executioner » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:21 am

p-freak wrote:
executioner wrote:REFUSE TOO PAY???? About 75% of the revenue and budget for the UN comes directly from the United States. No support from the United States would mean no UN. I feel along the lines as most of Americans that its time the UN pick up their junk and their dictatorship policies and high tail it out of New York; their headquarters are most likely best suited for some where in Africa because that is where the majority of the funds go which is right back into the dictators, gangs, or warlords back pockets.

WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WOULD NOT EXSIST!!
Let's turn that 75% into 22%. In the past they used to have a limit that rich countries wouldn't have to pay more than 25% of the UN budget. Because the US plainly refused to pay up, they started to negotiate and brought this limit down from 25% to 22%. The US should be a major contribution but they just don't pay their full fees. They're showing improvement, but it's still horrible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... DW20110125

The UN has proven that they can exist without US funding, because they just haven't paid up for years. This financial conflict has been going on for ages and ages and it's there because the US want to wriggle away from their international obligations, so if there's any country that is messing with the UN, it's the US. And don't give me that humbug about UN funds going straight to dictators and warlords. The weapons that your great government sold to the mujahedin in Afghanistan during the Soviet war in the 1980s, they went directly to dictators and warlords. Please, get your facts straight.

And the right spelling of exsist is exist.., :wink:

Ok lets go this route... The UN sits on about 20 acres of land right in the heart of the highest tax rate for property taxes in the nation maybe the world(about $1.4M per acre); The UN has never had to pay a $ to the United States for property taxes which would be just under $30m per year. Just think of all the revenue that is lost on the those 20 acres because the biggest non profit organization in the world sits there. The UN does not pay any utility bills like water, electricity, or any building maint. This is all fully paid for with United States tax payer money, no other country or UN member pays a dime of these bills. I don't know the exact percentages but we are the only country out of the six that freely gives equipment, weapons, and other big military(jets, tanks, armored vehicles) for UN use without getting a dime back in return; the other 5 countries that supply these items all get money back in return. I'm not sure exact percentages on how much the equipment is used by UN is actual United States Property but I would think we are in the majority here.

These above items are a few of the reasons the United States has fought hard to get their 25% reduced because unlike any other country in the UN they lose so much money in other areas; and pays out so much more in other areas that the other countries have refused to pay and never will. There are alot of tax payers and also politicans here in the United States that want the UN to start paying their property taxes, their own utility bills, building maint. etc. etc. etc. BTW there is one area I do agree with Obama on and that is he wants to reduced the amount of military equipment & personel but he also thinks the UN should start paying for the items as well. I say lets make them pay for all the things that we help out with. If you put together the amount of money we dish out each or lose every year because of the UN I bet you that 25% would go up to 75%. We Americans have basically been raped over the coals with the UN for many, many years and I'm for one that they leave and never come back. I would for one would vote to have all of our obligations, responsiblities, and ties cut completely off from the UN.

BTW the correct spelling for wriggle is wiggle.. no winks here buddy.
0 x
FORGIVE! FORGET! & LET GO!

User avatar
knotodiswrld
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:42 pm
#1 Album: This Means War
Pethead since: 1984
x 1

Re: Three takeaways from last nights debate

Post by knotodiswrld » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:29 pm

p-freak wrote:
executioner wrote:REFUSE TOO PAY???? About 75% of the revenue and budget for the UN comes directly from the United States. No support from the United States would mean no UN. I feel along the lines as most of Americans that its time the UN pick up their junk and their dictatorship policies and high tail it out of New York; their headquarters are most likely best suited for some where in Africa because that is where the majority of the funds go which is right back into the dictators, gangs, or warlords back pockets.

WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WOULD NOT EXSIST!!
Let's turn that 75% into 22%. In the past they used to have a limit that rich countries wouldn't have to pay more than 25% of the UN budget. Because the US plainly refused to pay up, they started to negotiate and brought this limit down from 25% to 22%. The US should be a major contribution but they just don't pay their full fees. They're showing improvement, but it's still horrible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... DW20110125

The UN has proven that they can exist without US funding, because they just haven't paid up for years. This financial conflict has been going on for ages and ages and it's there because the US want to wriggle away from their international obligations, so if there's any country that is messing with the UN, it's the US. And don't give me that humbug about UN funds going straight to dictators and warlords. The weapons that your great government sold to the mujahedin in Afghanistan during the Soviet war in the 1980s, they went directly to dictators and warlords. Please, get your facts straight.

And the right spelling of exsist is exist.., :wink:
The article you quote, along with your numbers, are quite misleading. Yes, your numbers are accurate as far as our assessed contributions go. Now, frankly, the very concept of "assessed" contributions is highly offensive. They amount to a tax, and NO FOREIGN POWER has the right to TAX The United States of America and the very IDEA that they think they can should, in my mind, be grounds to start WW3!!! The very attempt to tax the United States amounts to an act of war!

That having been said, in addition to our "assessed" contributions, there are the voluntary contributions we make (with which I have no problem whatsoever). U.S. contributions, as a Member State, finance most of the UN’s humanitarian relief and development agencies including the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP). http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/issu ... tions.html

Without the U.S., my friend, those programs do, in fact, shut down.

You believe the U.N. can exist without U.S. funding. Well, I sure wish we'd give them the opportunity to prove it!

And we all know about the weapons that went to the Mujahedin, as well as the weapons the Chinese gave to the Vietcong, the weapons the Russians gave to Iran, etc etc. Look, nations supply weapons to various groups as it meets their needs. It's been going on since the gladius was "state-of-the-art". Don't expect us to feel bad about that! It was part of the Cold War. Helping anyone who was opposing the Soviets was in our best interest at the time. Similarly, it was in the Soviets' best interests to do the same. So, no hard feelings there. As they say in Sicily, "It's just business".

But the U.N. does so on a far greater scale than any single nation ever has, and does so fully believing itself to have the moral high ground. (That's the part that makes them dangerous.) The U.N. aspires to be a one-world government. And that, despite my love of Star Trek, is something we simply can't allow.
0 x
The Master of The Earth became a servant of no worth
And paid a kings ransom for my soul

User avatar
knotodiswrld
Pethead
Pethead
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:42 pm
#1 Album: This Means War
Pethead since: 1984
x 1

Re: Three takeaways from last nights debate

Post by knotodiswrld » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:31 pm

executioner wrote:
p-freak wrote:
executioner wrote:REFUSE TOO PAY???? About 75% of the revenue and budget for the UN comes directly from the United States. No support from the United States would mean no UN. I feel along the lines as most of Americans that its time the UN pick up their junk and their dictatorship policies and high tail it out of New York; their headquarters are most likely best suited for some where in Africa because that is where the majority of the funds go which is right back into the dictators, gangs, or warlords back pockets.

WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES FUNDING THE UNITED NATIONS WOULD NOT EXSIST!!
Let's turn that 75% into 22%. In the past they used to have a limit that rich countries wouldn't have to pay more than 25% of the UN budget. Because the US plainly refused to pay up, they started to negotiate and brought this limit down from 25% to 22%. The US should be a major contribution but they just don't pay their full fees. They're showing improvement, but it's still horrible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... DW20110125

The UN has proven that they can exist without US funding, because they just haven't paid up for years. This financial conflict has been going on for ages and ages and it's there because the US want to wriggle away from their international obligations, so if there's any country that is messing with the UN, it's the US. And don't give me that humbug about UN funds going straight to dictators and warlords. The weapons that your great government sold to the mujahedin in Afghanistan during the Soviet war in the 1980s, they went directly to dictators and warlords. Please, get your facts straight.

And the right spelling of exsist is exist.., :wink:

Ok lets go this route... The UN sits on about 20 acres of land right in the heart of the highest tax rate for property taxes in the nation maybe the world(about $1.4M per acre); The UN has never had to pay a $ to the United States for property taxes which would be just under $30m per year. Just think of all the revenue that is lost on the those 20 acres because the biggest non profit organization in the world sits there. The UN does not pay any utility bills like water, electricity, or any building maint. This is all fully paid for with United States tax payer money, no other country or UN member pays a dime of these bills. I don't know the exact percentages but we are the only country out of the six that freely gives equipment, weapons, and other big military(jets, tanks, armored vehicles) for UN use without getting a dime back in return; the other 5 countries that supply these items all get money back in return. I'm not sure exact percentages on how much the equipment is used by UN is actual United States Property but I would think we are in the majority here.

These above items are a few of the reasons the United States has fought hard to get their 25% reduced because unlike any other country in the UN they lose so much money in other areas; and pays out so much more in other areas that the other countries have refused to pay and never will. There are alot of tax payers and also politicans here in the United States that want the UN to start paying their property taxes, their own utility bills, building maint. etc. etc. etc. BTW there is one area I do agree with Obama on and that is he wants to reduced the amount of military equipment & personel but he also thinks the UN should start paying for the items as well. I say lets make them pay for all the things that we help out with. If you put together the amount of money we dish out each or lose every year because of the UN I bet you that 25% would go up to 75%. We Americans have basically been raped over the coals with the UN for many, many years and I'm for one that they leave and never come back. I would for one would vote to have all of our obligations, responsiblities, and ties cut completely off from the UN.

BTW the correct spelling for wriggle is wiggle.. no winks here buddy.
Hmmm ... making the U.N. pay taxes and utilities ... I like it. I like it alot. But it would pale in comparison to what we give them.
0 x
The Master of The Earth became a servant of no worth
And paid a kings ransom for my soul

User avatar
rexreed
Pethead Fanatic
Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 977
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
#1 Album: Beyond Belief
Pethead since: 1991
Location: Houston
x 34

Re: Three takeaways from last nights debate

Post by rexreed » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:14 pm

Let's raise some money and tax all the churches too. MONEY is great!!!
0 x

executioner
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Extreme Pethead Fanatic
Posts: 3947
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:56 am
#1 Album: JAH
Pethead since: 1980
Location: Earth
x 56

Re: Three takeaways from last nights debate

Post by executioner » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:18 am

rexreed wrote:Let's raise some money and tax all the churches too. MONEY is great!!!


Sorry man but comparing churches to the UN is like comparing Churchill/Hitler. One goal of the UN has always been to rid the world of the church; We see & hear horror stories from our SBC Missionaries about on how the UN has done anything they can to keep Christian Missions out of Africa, Eastern Europe, South America, and all parts of Asia. The main obstacle these missionaries always talk about is the UN and on how the try to keep the missions out.

Remember money in itself is not evil, the love of money is where it turns bad.
0 x
FORGIVE! FORGET! & LET GO!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 59 guests